Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Hadoop >> mail # general >> Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Defining Hadoop Compatibility -revisiting-
But "distribution Z includes X" kind of implies the existence of some such
that X != Y, Y != empty-set and X+Y = Z, at least in common usage.

Isn't that the same as a non-trunk change?

So doesn't this mean that your question reduces to the question of what
happens when non-Apache changes are made to an Apache release?  And isn't
that the definition of a derived work?

 On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Allen Wittenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On May 13, 2011, at 2:55 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
>
> > On 05/13/2011 07:28 PM, Allen Wittenauer wrote:
> >> If it has a modified version of Hadoop (i.e., not an actual Apache
> >> release or patches which have never been committed to trunk), are
> >> they allowed to say "includes Apache Hadoop"?
> >
> > No.  Those are the two cases we permit.  We used to say that it was
> > enough for a patch to be in Jira, but Roy clarified last year that
> > committed to trunk is a better line, since that means the code has been
> > reviewed and accepted by the community.
>
>
>        So what do we do about companies that release a product that says
> "includes Apache Hadoop" but includes patches that aren't committed to
> trunk?
>
>
>
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB